Frequently asked questions and documents about state aid for Tata Steel

A. The core of the case

Q1. Why is €2 billion in State aid for Tata Steel a problem?

The Dutch State proposes to grant approximately €2 billion to Tata Steel: around EUR 1.2 billion to replace a coal-fired steelmaking installation with one initially running on fossil gas, EUR 600 million for measures to improve the living environment and health of nearby residents, and EUR 200 million for a potential future switch of the new steelmaking installation from fossil gas to hydrogen or biomethane.

The problem is not the ambition of greening the steel industry. The problem is that the proposed support lacks the binding obligations needed to guarantee that public money will actually lead to structural climate and health improvements. There is no enforceable timetable for full emission reduction in line with the Paris Agreement. Key fossil installations remain operational. And the claimed CO2 reductions are presented in a misleading way.

Q2. What exactly are you demanding?

We are demanding that any State aid granted to Tata Steel complies with EU law and delivers genuine, verifiable climate and health benefits.

Concretely, we call for:

• binding and enforceable obligations that guarantee a credible pathway to full climate neutrality, with clear milestones, deadlines, and sanctions for non-compliance;

• health measures that go beyond Tata Steel's existing legal obligations and are tied to independently monitored, health-based standards;

• transparency about what public money actually pays for — only costs that go beyond what Tata Steel is already legally required to do should be eligible for support;

• a plan that prevents long-term fossil dependency, not one that replaces coal with gas without credible guarantees of a timely switch to clean fuels.

We are not asking the Dutch State to abandon Tata Steel, but are asking it to condition public support on terms that make the transition to green steel real.

Q3. Why do you call this a climate case if it is about State aid?

Because State aid is one of the most powerful instruments governments have to shape industry, and how that instrument is used can determine whether the climate transition happens or not.

The Dutch State is proposing to spend EUR 2 billion of public money on Tata Steel. That money can either accelerate a genuine transition to clean steel production, or it can lock in fossil infrastructure for decades. The difference lies entirely in whether the support comes with binding climate conditions.

This is a climate case, because the outcome will directly affect how much Tata Steel, the Netherlands' single largest industrial emitter, Contributes to dangerous climate change over the coming decades. And because the legal standards that govern State aid exist precisely to prevent public money from being used in ways that distort competition without delivering real public benefits.

B. The State aid and the legal framework

Q4. Why do you consider the proposed State aid incompatible with EU law?

Because the proposed support does not meet the strict requirements that EU law imposes on State aid for environmental and climate purposes.

Under EU rules, Member States cannot freely grant financial support to companies, this can distort competition on the internal market. State aid is therefore prohibited unless the European Commission explicitly approves it, based on the criteria set out in the Guidelines on State Aid for Climate, Environmental Protection and Energy (CEEAG).

We believe the proposed support fails on multiple fundamental points. It does not demonstrate that the aid is strictly necessary and proportionate. It does not show that the claimed CO2 reductions are actually caused by the subsidised measures. It does not contain binding guarantees against long-term fossil dependency. And for a significant share of the proposed health measures, it has not been shown that they go beyond what Tata Steel is already legally required to do under existing permits and regulations. Under EU rules, State aid cannot be used to cover costs a company is obliged to bear anyway.

The EU rules are clear about the fact that public money must lead to additional, verifiable improvements, not fund a company's legal obligations or lock in fossil infrastructure without credible exit guarantees.

Q5. Is it correct that you have filed a complaint with the European Commission?

Yes. On 7 April 2026 Advocates for the Future submitted observations to the European Commission about our legal concerns regarding the intended State aid for Tata Steel Nederland.

In those observations, we set out why the proposed State aid does not comply with EU law and why the Commission cannot approve it in its current form. We called on the Commission to review the intended aid with extra scrutiny before any support is granted.

Before filing our observations, we also submitted a detailed response to the Dutch government's public consultation on the Joint Letter of Intent in December 2025, in which we outlined our concerns and reiterated that urgency does not justify unlawful State aid.

Q6. What can and should the European Commission do?

The European Commission is the only body with authority to approve State aid under EU law. No Member State can grant support without Commission approval.

When a complaint is filed, the Commission can open a formal investigation into whether the notified aid is compatible with EU State aid rules. We are asking the Commission to do exactly that: conduct a review, require the Dutch State to demonstrate that the proposed support delivers real and enforceable climate and health benefits, and refuse approval if those conditions are not met.

The Commission has both the power and the responsibility to ensure that public money invested in industrial transitions actually result in clean steel.

C. Fossil lock-in and public health

Q7. Why is the DRP-EAF approach, the new gas-based production route, a problem?

Because it replaces coal with gas, and gas is still a fossil fuel.

The core of the proposed investment is a new Direct Reduction Plant combined with an Electric Arc Furnace (DRP-EAF). This installation would replace Blast Furnace 7 and Coke Oven Plant 2, which currently run on coal. That is presented as a major step forward.

But there are two fundamental problems. First, the new DRP-EAF would initially run on natural gas. While gas produces lower direct emissions than coal, it remains a fossil fuel and creates real risks of long-term dependency, particularly given the uncertainty about when renewable hydrogen or biomethane will be available at industrial scale.

Second, the plan only covers 60% of Tata Steel's production. The remaining 40%, running on coal, remains in place. That means public money is being used to partially modernise a company that remains substantially dependent on fossil fuels.

The JLoI does not contain binding obligations that guarantee a timely switch to clean fuels. It explicitly accepts a scenario in which the new installation continues to run on fossil inputs for an extended period, with only financial consequences for non-compliance.

Q8. What is wrong with the claimed CO2 reductions in the plan?

The claimed reductions are significantly overstated, and in some cases the methodology used makes the reduction look larger on paper than it is in reality.

We have identified three specific problems. First, part of the reduction results simply from lower production capacity: producing less steel inevitably means lower emissions. That is not a climate achievement attributable to the subsidised measures.

Second, the plan shifts emissions from scope 1 (direct emissions at the site) to scope 2 and scope 3 (emissions from electricity use and supply chains). Switching from coal to gas-fired production, reduces what Tata Steel reports as its own direct emissions, but much of that CO2 does not disappear but moves elsewhere in the chain.

Third, the baseline used to calculate reductions does not reflect Tata Steel's actual recent production levels. Using a higher theoretical baseline makes the percentage reduction look more impressive than it is.

The result is that the headline figure of over 40% CO2 reduction overstates the genuine climate benefit of the proposed measures.

Q9. What do you mean by "fossil lock-in" in the context of Tata Steel?

Fossil lock-in means that a major investment in fossil-based infrastructure makes it financially and politically very difficult to move away from that infrastructure for decades to come.

If EUR 1.2 billion in public money is invested in a new gas-fired steelmaking installation, and that installation comes without binding obligations to switch to clean fuels within a set timeframe, then Tata Steel, and the Dutch government, will have powerful incentives to keep running it on gas for as long as possible.

The problem is not gas as a transitional step per se. The problem is a transitional step without a credible endpoint. The JLoI does not contain enforceable guarantees that the DRP-EAF will switch to hydrogen or biomethane in time to be consistent with 1.5°C. History shows that fossil infrastructure, once built with public support, tends to stay in use until it is financially exhausted. That is the lock-in we are trying to prevent.

Q10. You mention health as well as climate, what is the problem?

Tata Steel does not only emit greenhouse gases. It also emits particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals, and other toxic substances that have for years caused serious health risks to residents in the IJmond region.

Health experts, residents, and public authorities have documented the elevated health risks in the area for many years. The proposed €600 million for health and environmental measures is supposed to address this. But we have serious doubts about whether it will.

A significant portion of the proposed health measures may not go further than what Tata Steel is already legally required to do under its permits. EU State aid rules explicitly state: public money cannot be used to cover costs a company must bear anyway under existing law. Beyond the legal question, the health measures in the JLoI lack independent monitoring requirements, health-based standards, and enforceable targets. Without those safeguards, there is no way to verify that the money spent will actually result in cleaner air for IJmond residents.

D. Process and support

Q11. What is the current status of the case?

In December 2025, we submitted a detailed response to the Dutch government's public consultation on the Joint Letter of Intent, setting out our legal concerns in full.

On 6 April 2026, we submitted our Observations to the European Commission, asking it to review the proposed State aid and refuse approval in its current form. That complaint is now pending before the Commission.

In May 2026, we submitted a request under the Dutch Open Government Act (Woo) to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, and the Ministry of Finance for the disclosure of all relevant information regarding the proposed agreement. We urge the Dutch government to grant access to this information prior to the conclusion of any binding agreement or the notification of the measure to the European Commission.

On 5 June 2026, we submitted additional observations to the European Commission and sent a letter to the Dutch government in which we ask for a renewed assessment of the proposed aid, updated public information, and clarification on the consequences for the intended State aid and the Joint Letter of Intent as a result of new financial information regarding Tata Steel

Q12. How can people support this case?

Everyone who wants a genuine green transition, for the steel industry, for IJmond residents, and for the climate, can support this case. You can help by sharing the case, signing our petition, staying informed through our updates, and speaking to elected representatives about the importance of binding conditions on public support for industry.

This case will ultimately be decided in legal and political arenas. But the broader debate, about what public money should require of polluting industries, about who bears the costs of the climate transition, and about what a genuinely fair and effective industrial policy looks like, is one that needs to happen publicly, loudly, and with the voices of everyone who has a stake in the outcome.